Someone at WikiLeaks Discussion Forum has very robust material and documented evidence of UFO lies.

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


I posted the true Wikileaks information in this thread and beatbox dug out more truth connected to that information, no one seems to be interested in the truth. I guess it's just not sensational enough, maybe I should have posted it in a true wikileaks thread.
I'm a believer but I want to know the truth, not half truths mixed with lies.




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Why do you all condemn someone who brought a tremndous amt of information to you? Do with what you will. Do your own investigating. It is not up to the person posting the links to fact check everything. I found these sites very interesting and thought provoking. If you all are so smart why arent you doing more than posting on an internet blog? I have enjoyed it and will continue to look and form my own opinion. Don't need anyone to tell me wether it is right or wrong. I can do my own research.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by girlofmountain1
 


You certainly are reasonable.

Thanks.
edit on 1-12-2012 by jjsirius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Interesting how ATS got singled out in the CIA disinfo section, and how this thread is playing out the MO. There is a huge amount of material to go through in the OP's link, nevertheless it was done an dusted as all a hoax within half an hour of the OP's first post. I guess those guys are all remote viewers.
edit on 1-12-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Personally I believe without doubt that we are being visited (note: I said I "believe" not know) and its partly because I WANT to believe. I have witnessed "strange" things in the Sky but nothing concrete enough to say "It WAS a craft".

That said, I have been studying this stuff since the early 1990s and as of yet have seen nothing but Hoaxes. It doesnt make me "not believe" it just means I am free thinking enough (IMHO) not to be gullible and pick and choose evidence based on my desire.

I WANT some proof. And I DO feel some of the peoples stories (some...) are real. But I think 99% of everything in this area is a hoax and the 1% cannot be proven...Yet.

Makes me a sad panda. =(



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Would you believe the Director of the CIA?

www.wanttoknow.info...

Does that help?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjsirius
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Would you believe the Director of the CIA?

www.wanttoknow.info...

Does that help?



No. Sorry. It adds to the plethora of circumstantial evidence which further solidifies my belief but isnt the "proof" or the "smoking gun" I speak of.

Even those nasa tapes with the "energy creatures" (which honestly really frighten me) isnt "proof" of anything but natural (perhaps) phenomenon which isnt yet understood. Although, again, I believe the "energy creatures" are actually "beings" of some sort.

A quote or even a whistle blower or book (day after Roswell) could be disinformation- In fact, I am certain Day After Roswell was total disinfo.

Pretty much Hoaxes are so easily pulled off with todays technology that it really makes it difficult to know what is real. "Reality" as we know it, isnt real.

-And then there is the "Bluebeam" theory which paints a new level onto things (again, potentially) meaning even if/when "full disclosure" happens- I am not sure that will be "proof".

I know I probably am not making a ton of sence , I am multi-tasking and short on time. Will try to explain better at a later time.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jjsirius
 


I really hope this isn't the purported UFO wikileaks some people claim is the real reason the gov't is leaning hard on Assange.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


Personally, I believe they leaned hard on JFK.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

In the UK more people believe in UFO's than God.
45% of Chileans want to meet ET's.

Look at all the football field size daily sightings and it would appear this thing is coming apart.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
First post, bear with me!
This thread, in a nutshell, encapsulates exactly why " The Truth", whatever that may be, will never be revealed as a cold hard FACT.
People want proof? What kind of proof? People want overwhelming circumstantial evidence? What kind of overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
At what point does the cynic, non believer and believer actually come together to agree, by consensus, that what has been presented as evidence ( for or against an "Alien presence") is actually going to be good enough to satisfy all parties?
Well it aint gonna happen is it!
You either believe or you dont, thats the bottom line. Some of you feel that what you have been presented with on this thread isnt good enough? Tough titty. Rather than whinge about material that, in your view, is bogus, already debunked, hoaxed etc, etc how about you present the rest of us with the actual PROOF that it is any or all of the things mentioned. Problem is nobody can, can they. Nothing has ever really been totally proven to have been debunked, blimey, even the Alien Autopsy film, since debunked, still has more holes in the "debunking story" than you would find in a Thai brothel. Thing is, it suits the debunkers, somebody has said that they created the hoax so its all ok, we can wrap it all up in a neat little bow and tip it into the bin, job done.
Wikileaks? Everybody has bought into the story, we see all these secret communiques that have gone back and forth between embassies and the like and we automatically believe that they are true. Hey, nobody says " That was done by a hostile nation to discredit another but the discredited nation wont admit it as it would be a sign of great weakness......"
Nope, we buy into all of that c**p but as soon as anything to do with Ufology is mentioned, up come the shutters and the debunkers start coming out of the woodwork.Brilliant. You want the truth? Maybe a leap of faith as opposed to sheer cynicism and p*ss poor sarcasm may help.....just a lil bit.
Is the OP right to consider that they are presenting is something with more than a grain of truth in it, let alone a "smoking gun?" maybe, maybe not. You certainly cannot judge the presented material without reading it all carefull and in its ENTIRETY! Thats something that, clearly, people havent done before doing a Judge Jeffries on the OP. Again, well done you lot!
Cynicism never found the truth about anything, only an open mind has a cat in hells chance.
Somewhere, in all of that material is the truth because, if there is no truth to be had, what utterly sad tw*t would go to all of that trouble to create such a hoax!
All by design, wrap the truth in layer upon layer of bullsh*t, only those that persevere will get to it, the rest will give up.
Amen.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
So the thread in the link of the OP is one giant disinformation crap? At least the

Normalcy bias
Herd Mentality

will be quite a suitable label for the majority here who call themselves skeptics, but to some believers as well.

It has the Phil Schneider video but not info about Dulce.

It has the 'starchild' skull

Bob Lazar's interviews..

The thread has the hoaxer James Maussan's 'reptilian' more like a doll. Steven Greer, another charlatan.

Alex Collier, Timothy Good, John Lear, Richard Hoagland,

So it has a mix of possible with completely untrue stories, pictures or findings.
edit on 2-12-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Repeatedly citing how 'decorated' and supposedly credible a given witness is only serves to push rational thinkers away from Ufology. For, it smacks of a desperate need to prove the voracity of a source's assertion not through scrutiny of what's being stated, but rather, through their apparent credentials; which are ultimately immaterial to what's being proffered.

The problem is, even a pope can be a paedophile. So, too, can a 10-Star General Brigadier Admiral Vice Chancellor Jar Jar Jedi be a bullshít artiste.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by LFN69
 


Sorry but what your referring to is blind faith. something i won't do, and im fairly sure the rest of the skeptics here won't do either. You say what proofs gonna be good enough? Simply... Proof that isn't a blurry pic or cgi video. Proof that can be seen clearly for what it is vs proof thats only based on one persons encounter, circumstantial evidence , or 2nd or even 3rd hand stories. Proof that multiable people sighted something that was immdiately viewed by the media... and not reports that happen hours after the fact.

For me that proof is the jerusalam sightings in 2011.. and as far as i know has not been completely debunked (could be wrong)

Yet i would be stupid to think that is absolute proof when the courts still out. There is evidence out there but nothing is solid and aslong as there is doubt then you will never have a total agreement on this subject.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by lookingfortruth79
reply to post by LFN69
 


Sorry but what your referring to is blind faith. something i won't do, and im fairly sure the rest of the skeptics here won't do either. You say what proofs gonna be good enough? Simply... Proof that isn't a blurry pic or cgi video. Proof that can be seen clearly for what it is vs proof thats only based on one persons encounter, circumstantial evidence , or 2nd or even 3rd hand stories. Proof that multiable people sighted something that was immdiately viewed by the media... and not reports that happen hours after the fact.

For me that proof is the jerusalam sightings in 2011.. and as far as i know has not been completely debunked (could be wrong)

Yet i would be stupid to think that is absolute proof when the courts still out. There is evidence out there but nothing is solid and aslong as there is doubt then you will never have a total agreement on this subject.


Well, you ARE wrong. Even the owners of this forum have declared their view that the Jerusalem sightings were a video hoax. So what YOU regard as proof is merely yet another story that has been debunked by many visitors to ATS. And that is the problem. So-called "proof" of genuine UFOs can be claimed that was based upon multiple witness sightings and video evidence immediately verified by the media and it will STILL not satisfy some of you. What is proof for one is not proof for another - not necessarily because the latter has higher standards to satisfy but because he has DIFFERENT criteria that he needs to convince him. And that's why we still have skeptics despite all the evidence out there. There are some who would still scream "hallucination" or "Chinese lanterns" even if they, personally, saw a flying saucer from the planet Zog land on their petunias in their back garden (well, excuse the hyperbole - I hope you see my point). So, even first-hand evidence would not convince them, let alone ANY variety of second-hand testimony - however reliable or credible the witness(es) seemed. And so it will remain until they land on the White House lawn. Until then, ufology will remain no more than anecdotes of varying degrees of reliability.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lookingfortruth79
reply to post by LFN69
 


Sorry but what your referring to is blind faith. something i won't do, and im fairly sure the rest of the skeptics here won't do either. You say what proofs gonna be good enough? Simply... Proof that isn't a blurry pic or cgi video. Proof that can be seen clearly for what it is vs proof thats only based on one persons encounter, circumstantial evidence , or 2nd or even 3rd hand stories. Proof that multiable people sighted something that was immdiately viewed by the media... and not reports that happen hours after the fact.

For me that proof is the jerusalam sightings in 2011.. and as far as i know has not been completely debunked (could be wrong)

Yet i would be stupid to think that is absolute proof when the courts still out. There is evidence out there but nothing is solid and aslong as there is doubt then you will never have a total agreement on this subject.


Well Ive re read my post and, nope, i cant see where I have even alluded to blind faith!!!
Hey, If you had come at me with a "balance of probability" scenario you would have got the thumbs up from me.
Your take on "proof" is no more proof than believing that the illusionist "Dynamo" really does walk through glass windows in full view of gobsmacked people. Is that fella an illusionist or can he really walk through solid glass? Balance of probability? He is an illusionist.
Do other life forms visit planet Earth? Well if you believe the scientists, even the "Skeptics" amongst them will acknowledge that the probability of other life existing out there in the infinite universe is high. The only thing they dont believe is that they have already found us. Thats just semantics, surely? If Science accepts the probability of life elsewhere then it must accept that life, wherever it may be would not neccessarily have evolved in unison with life on Earth. Isnt it a no brainer that life has evolved elsewhere long before AND long after life on this Planet?
I dont see the argument really.
Now im not going to convince skeptics and ive not set out to. As I said on my first post you will not get absolute proof, well i dont think you will in my lifetime anyway so you have to look at the overall picture and make a judgement call. For me, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, no its not PROOF but on a balance of probability I believe and I cannot for the life of me see any reason to think otherwise.
Yes, some of the stuff that comes out beggars belief but some...................................
Each to their own, eh?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 



Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by lookingfortruth79
reply to post by LFN69
 


Sorry but what your referring to is blind faith. something i won't do, and im fairly sure the rest of the skeptics here won't do either. You say what proofs gonna be good enough? Simply... Proof that isn't a blurry pic or cgi video. Proof that can be seen clearly for what it is vs proof thats only based on one persons encounter, circumstantial evidence , or 2nd or even 3rd hand stories. Proof that multiable people sighted something that was immdiately viewed by the media... and not reports that happen hours after the fact.

For me that proof is the jerusalam sightings in 2011.. and as far as i know has not been completely debunked (could be wrong)

Yet i would be stupid to think that is absolute proof when the courts still out. There is evidence out there but nothing is solid and aslong as there is doubt then you will never have a total agreement on this subject.


Well, you ARE wrong. Even the owners of this forum have declared their view that the Jerusalem sightings were a video hoax. So what YOU regard as proof is merely yet another story that has been debunked by many visitors to ATS. And that is the problem. So-called "proof" of genuine UFOs can be claimed that was based upon multiple witness sightings and video evidence immediately verified by the media and it will STILL not satisfy some of you. What is proof for one is not proof for another - not necessarily because the latter has higher standards to satisfy but because he has DIFFERENT criteria that he needs to convince him. And that's why we still have skeptics despite all the evidence out there. There are some who would still scream "hallucination" or "Chinese lanterns" even if they, personally, saw a flying saucer from the planet Zog land on their petunias in their back garden (well, excuse the hyperbole - I hope you see my point). So, even first-hand evidence would not convince them, let alone ANY variety of second-hand testimony - however reliable or credible the witness(es) seemed. And so it will remain until they land on the White House lawn. Until then, ufology will remain no more than anecdotes of varying degrees of reliability.


After looking at my prior post i realized that i worded that wrong. What it should have said was

"For me a example of the type of proof needed is the same kinda setup as the jerusalam sightings in 2011.. and as far as i know those have not been completely debunked (could be wrong)"


Now i was wrong in my original statement. I am man enough to admit that. I was still reading through the offical thread and I failed to note the admin edits on the first post. My bad, and thanks for ruining the ending for me. I was enjoying the read.

What i was trying get across was a scenario of multiable sightings of something from multiable locations with video thats neither hazy or tampered with. I mean is this too much to ask ? Apparently it is because of people out there who think its hilarious to hoax people with a legit curiosity about these things. Those people buy it hook line and sinker then come here saying see see. So skeptics get the burden of having to explain to this person why it a hoax and then get called unbeliever/closeminded for their effort. Add up all the bs of getting ones hopes up time and again for solid proof, only to be let down. Your telling me you can't understand a skeptics frustration in these matters? I have seen skeptics here state they would love for it to be true but nothing has been solid yet. This situation is the same for the believers as well I grant you that all day long.

Yes there are some skeptics who probably dismiss evidence without looking closely,but surely you concede to the fact there are scam artists/hoaxers out there preying on the ignorant that add to the problem to yes?



There are some who would still scream "hallucination" or "Chinese lanterns" even if they, personally, saw a flying saucer from the planet Zog land on their petunias in their back garden


While i see your point i think your taking this to far. Most of the skeptics i have seen in these forums state loudly that they believe in Life outside our planet, but don't believe its here at present. They ask for proof and when they are given proof, its almost always that same stuff shown to them year in and year out. Stories of sightings with no photo evidence, ever changing details about what happened, no other witnesses etc.

In the end we need a universal way to measure evidence as real or fake that BOTH sides will endorse. Since apparently the scientific method is not good enough anymore when it comes to this particular study
edit on 4-12-2012 by lookingfortruth79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by LFN69
 

See i had a big ole post in response but its now nearly 5 am and im tired. The blind faith point i was making was believing something has to be just because a bunch of circumstantial evidence eludes to that conclusion is taking said evidence at face value and thats blind faith. Blind faith that the witness got the details right, or are not fudging them just to get their 5 mins of fame. Blind faith that the obviously CGied video is real despite the obvious issues with it. Blind faith that glowing objects in the sky or weird contrails are aliens in nature and not natural phenomenon associated with our atmosphere and our perception of it. If you wanan say they are Unidentified objects in the sky.. im with you all day ,but when we start saying aliens then..it requires more. There are too many factors in circumstantial evidence that can cause doubts and if theres doubt then it is up for speculation. You may not agree and thats perfectly fine. Everyone has their point of vew now don't they?



Cynicism never found the truth about anything, only an open mind has a cat in hells chance.


My next point is proven in the above quote of yours.The problem is that skeptics are labled the "bad guy" from believers when in reality they want what you want and thats the truth no matter which side said truth favors. Only condition thay have is solid evidence be provided. Yet believers can not bring anything more then circumstantial evidence, but will harrass and insult a skeptic for not totally accepting said evidence, for questioning it which is what any logical human should be practicing. They are just unwilling to believe anything at face value unless it can be proven with the scientific method. Can you blame them for wanting substantial evidence not hearsay? Obviously you can considering you comment. Btw.. Plenty of skeptical people in history defied the belief of the times and proved the truth. Their skepticism is what made them open minded enough to do that. Right off the top of my head the wright brothers comes to mind. I could name plenty more but its late now and i think you see my point. In the end i agree with points you bring up, but im not willing to clutter my research and study with things that are proven hoaxes, unless theres more then enough proven evidence to discredit its hoax status, just to satisfy people who won't discredit anything if it punches holes in their belief.
I believe in aliens!
I believe they are out there!
Hell i believe they have been around this universe alot longer then us!
Do i believe they are here? Possible but no solid proof yet. I believe we aren't that intresting so why be here in such force? Given the evidence provided thus far. At best primitive to any being with tech capable of coming this great distance thus nothing to offer other then possible insight into our biological makeup as well as the planets etc. I leave the avenue open for the possiblity tho. Yet like i said so far circumstantial evidence at best has been provided, nothing solid, thus leaving me on the fence as a skeptic.

Guess this post turned out long after all oh well.

edit on 4-12-2012 by lookingfortruth79 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-12-2012 by lookingfortruth79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PieceOfThePuzzle
 


Yes, remember, many things have been called a hoax and then turned out never to have been proven a hoax. It is just a way for the cover up to keep things covered up.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
This is not a hoax:

"I was testing a P-51 fighter in Minneapolis when I spotted this object. I was at about 10,000 feet on a nice, bright, sunny afternoon. I thought the object was a kite, then I realized that no kite is gonna fly that high".

"As I got closer it looked like a weather balloon, gray and about three feet in diameter. But as soon as I got behind the darn thing it didn't look like a balloon anymore. It looked like a saucer, a disk".

"About the same time, I realized that it was suddenly going away from me -- and there I was, running at about 300 miles per hour. I tracked it for a little way, and then all of a sudden the damn thing just took off. It pulled about a 45 degree climbing turn and accelerated and just flat disappeared"


1951
Deke Slayton, one of the original seven American astronauts



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
in my opinion, the 'modern' ufo research are different from the previous era (1950-1980) where there are field research interview and site visit going on instead of push toward Roswell crash, Conspiracy , secret bases, captured aliens and crafts.. in his conclusion, the late dr hynek doubt the nuts-n-bolt ETH hypothesis regarding UFO phenomena.

these kind of misdirection, hoaxes and other things in modern UFO research are repeating and keep repeating the same stuff all over again, certainly true in USA ufo community. its like walking thru a hall of mirrors, you don't know which is the real one..

my suggestion is to look for patterns in all these informations.. and to look for sightings and CE cases dated back before 1947. for eye opener look for South American UFO cases in 1950-1980 era..





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join